While I'm still a big supporter of the video camera over the DSLR video movement, I can't help but notice that DSLRs seem to be the "norm" (searching multiple forums, it seems as though no one is buying the traditional video cameras anymore...not unless it's hugely discounted any way). This seems especially big with wedding videos.

Take, for example, Still Motion. Now I know we can't all be like them, but I notice that they primarily use DSLRs in weddings even though they have a RED Epic, Sony F3, etc. Is there a reason as to why DSLRs are so popular for these videos, despite their shortcomings as a video camera?

The biggest reason for me is the Lenses. The biggest shortcoming of the average Video Camera - one lens. If I had to go back to a video camera world I would be so bored, stuck with that one lens.

And look at the results ...well done DSLR shoots are visually more on par with good photography.

So something like an AF100 wouldn't provide enough of a boost for its price? I've seen some go as low as $3000 used lately...

I'm personally a dSLR shooter and would hardly see myself switching to camcorders anytime soon.

I mainly love the unobtrusive size and weight of a dSLR and the variety of lenses I can use with them, which gives me great quality for its price.

Same with long, its the form factor. One of our companies selling points is the unobtrusiveness. On consults we ask the couple if they would rather have a big video camera with a bright light on their faces, or another photographer following them around, without any lights. People are more comfortable around the dslr's so you get more authentic emotions from people.

Now if the new 4k dslr comes with professional video features, that might be something worth looking into. You need to be fast with weddings, and small light and mobil is the way to go.

Yes, the AF100 is a competitor in many ways..

Because of the 2x cropped sensor, you're challenged to go to a very wide lens.
You won't get the insane narrow depth of field as with a DSLR (but that might be a good thing).


But besides that, it's a win win for those of us looking to stay with video cameras. People like Oleg Kalyan on Vimeo are proof...

I'm looking to get one for next year.

But as far as mentioning people like Still Motion etc.....Video cameras with large sensors weren't available at the time, and the DSLR was fantastic with narrow DOF, and low light.
But there's a whole new crop of video cameras with the Super 35mm sensors that emulate film cameras, which is good enough for me...
Great under low light, and DOF can be narrow with a decent lens..

The AF100 is the only camera that i can think of (for the price range) that can get you these advantages.

An experienced and talented cameraman can make imagery from a DSLR and video camera look the same. For continuous handheld use I would put ergonomics as one of the top criteria for camera selection.

The AF100/FS100 don't offer the same amount of flexibility as the DSLR's, despite the fact they are specifically designed for video.

With DSLR's at weddings, my main lens is a 70-200 f/2.8. It's a moderatley sized piece of glass and needs to be supported to avoid putting strain on the lens mount. With an AF100 oor FS100 and this lens (ok, for compatability's sake we'll say it's a Nikon 80-200, which will work with any of these cameras) you need to use rails and a lens support, because both the lens and the body are too heavy to be left dangling on the lens mount unaided. So that means that if you want to switch lenses, it's going to take a few minutes to dissasemble everything. With a DSLR, you just attach the lens collar to the tripod and leave the diminuitive body attached to the lens with no other support. Wanna change lenses? Just push a button and twist, and you're ready to attach the new lens within seconds. With matching plates on all support gear (slider, tripod, monopod, stabiliser, shoulder mount, etc) it never takes me more than 15 seconds to change my setup with a DSLR, assuming I have prepared everything properly.

Another factor is the cost. Sure, the AF100/FS100 cost the same as what most videographers are used to paying for camcorders such as the HMC150 or NX5, but with interchangeable lenses it helps to have 2-3 bodies so you are able to switch setups and be ready quicker. So (lenses aside) $3-5000 for 3xDSLR 's is a lot more realistic for most wedding shooters than $15000 for 3 FS100's.

The AF100/FS100/C300/F3 all have their place, but for weddings, which require fast setup and flexibility, the DSLR's still offer the most attractive features.

I will join others and go with the reason is bang for the buck.

But I will also go with bang for the buck and the recipient couldn't discern DSLR quality from that of a RED.

I do think we are hitting a stage where capture is exceeding the ability to deliver at the same quality output. I also think most people can't see the difference between a well shot $1000 DSLR footage and footage from the AF100 or maybe even a RED. How much better is a RED over a $1000 DSLR when the TV the footage is watched on isn't even calibrated for colors?

I think for some, it may also come down to a comfort level, what the shooter feels most comfortable and confidant shooting. That comfort and confidence may just result in as sweet of footage, as the options any camera may give.

It's a very tough call for some people, including me. I just ordered a second videocamera, but I'm confused nevertheless, as I'm editing a wedding shot with a combination of DSLR and video. The DSLR footage is so bright and detailed, but the videocamera has a zoom that I cannot live without. I'm truly torn between the two.

I want to get back to focusing on the story, not the tools, and the DSLR cameras are so time consuming and fidgety! It just take time and experience.

Maybe the USA is different, but over here brides have honking great 60"+++ flat screen TV's BUT connected to it is a standard $29.00 discount store DVD player!!

With the new AC-130's the resolution is absolutely awesome so I have stayed away from DSLR's but nevertheless I STILL am forced to render everything to SD...even if one bride in a hundred has the facility to play HD, she still wants a DVD copy for Mum and even Grandad and you can be quite assured that Grandad isn't going to own any HD gear either!!

I know it's great to see hi res footage but most brides (from a survey I did on our local forum) said that they really couldn't see what all the fuss was about..one said "It all looks the same to me, but hubby says it's better" As long as you are in focus and sharp (SD sharp anyway) the brides will love you...I think Don Bloom is proof of that as he still shoots in SD!!!

DSLR's are way to fiddly for me but others love them..I guess that's why some people drive Fords and other drive GM's ...it's really a matter of what suits your style and what you feel comfortable with.

It's actually nice to see that the threads here have become more civil lately without the "in-fighting" between DSLR users and video users!! We all have a job to do and choose the tools that we need.

Chris

DSLR is nice, it has its looks, but on the other hand I prefer using a video camera, I own both actually, but I don't use DSLR for wedding or event,

Brides are blown away when they see video highlights that has the cinematic look aka shallow depth of field, but after getting the final DVD results in desperation and complaint that why some of the shots were out of focus, audio out of sync, and most of all why is their video short.

A bride came to me asking me if I could fix the blurry background that was taken during their first dance by another filmmaker , all the backgrounds were too shallow that she couldn't recognize the people or her guest behind it, she's comparing her video after watching her friends video which I happen to shoot using the Z7u.

A while back I tried filming weddings using the 5D MK 2, but after 3 attempts, I gave up and went back with my old HD camcorder. besides using a DSLR for wedding requires at list 2 or 3 personnel for great results which cost more, way more!

Since I shoot solo on most of my weddings, my production work around is so efficient, that I could deliver 90 minutes DVD video to my brides within a week, and to me it all comes to like what other says... "Comfortability Level".
__________________
www.iClickFilms.com

@Rickey - good thing I wasn't drinking anything, woulda had to clean off the screen! Funny how if you shoot for one "look", they'll want another!

I've just added a couple SLTA65's to the mix, primarily for stills, but the video tests so far looked quite nice, give me some reasonable manual control, and I hope will "double" as video cameras as needed. Still want to shoot more tests, see how the footage combines with my other "video acquisition devices", but I think the Sony "looks" are pretty close between their various cameras and should work out fine.

I like the "SLR look" for SOME things, but don't see it as a "one size fits all" solution, in the end, it's a good excuse to have another camera! There are some things where a video camera, even just a fixed one on a tripod will give you the "backup" for when you miss the shot for focal or other reasons!

Here's notes from a low-end wedding videographer - sub $1000 work.

1. Autofocus
+ Video camcorder, esp. Canon's line with Instant AF.
Won't matter even if you can't see the bride - Instant AF, using IR light, will snap that baby into focus fast! Most have face detection and subject tracking, too. Not only that, won't matter at all if you can't SEE the screen. Just point it at someone and it will almost always achieve focus (at least the Canon's with Instant AF do for me).
- DSLR. Pray if you don't have an external monitor. Achieving focus in low-light with a moving bride will be hell. (and out of focus brides = hell)

1b. Autoexposure.
+ camcorder. Along with face detection, nothing like having good autoexposure when the camcorder has locked onto a face. Doesn't matter all the white the bride wears, she'll still look good because the camcorder sees her face.
- DSLR. Pray you've got even lighting or you'll be adjusting f/stops, ISO, etc. all the time. And when ISO's jump, this is more clearly seen vs. a camcorder.

2. Battery
+ Video camcorder. Just attach an extended battery pack, OEM, and you can simply press the record button and go for 4+ hours non-stop. Almost always, it's attached to the rear, and you can swap in under 5 seconds. Critical for times when things can't stop midway. With care and planning, you can get the entire ~3 hour wedding with one battery, then the ~3 hour reception with another. 2 packs and you're done.
- DSLR. You're gonna have to carry tons of battery packs and/or external pack.

3. Zoom range.
+ Video camcorder. No issues here with most of them. Even if you're forced to stand in the very back of a LARGE cathedral, you can get nice closeups of the couple up front.
- DSLR. Pray you bought a long zoom with you. It's a toss up - either a short zoom/prime with wide, max f/stop, or a long-zoom with so-so f/stop, or a really expensive, heavy tele with wide f/stop.

4. Max/widest f/stop = better light gathering in low-light situations.
+ Video camcorder. Most of the them give you f/1.x right from the box.
- DSLR. Unless you're buying prime lenses or really expensive short zooms, don't even expect to see f/1.x.

5. Sensor sensitivity & noise
- Video camcorder. It's bitsy 1/2" or smaller sensor. More noise in low-light situations.
+ DSLR - Huge, in comparison, APS to 35mm sensor. Better in low-light situations.

6. 4+ hour non-stop recording.
+ Video camcorder. It's designed for this, and if you've got the battery pack and memory card space, feel free to keep recording forever.
- DSLR - Sensor overheating issues. Maximum recording time limits. etc. etc. Just wait until you're in the middle of a Catholic mass wedding and you'll regret it when your DSLR stops.

7. Compactness.
Same. Consumer level HD camcorders, even prosumer models, have dropped to the ~1lbs weight and size of DSLRs.

8. Optical stabliziation.
+ Video camcorder. Cannot say how many times that camcorders rule when it comes to moving about with a stedicam nowadays. The stabilization in modern consumer level camcorders have improved significantly and now have 4000+ corrections per second around all 6 axis. When walking carefully, the latest really do replace mini-stabilizers!
- DSLR. Pray you've got the money left for a stabilizer kit/gear/vest because you will need it! Walk and you'll see motion like crazy.

9. Sensor damage.
+ Video camcorder. Sorry, sealed. No way to damage it in normal use.
- DSLR. Everytime you take off a lens is asking for it.

10. Out of box, good to go-ness.
+ Video camcorder. Snap in battery and memory card, and run! Most are designed to be run & gun.
- DSLR. Read manual. Yes, Don't forget to read manual because it will bite you when you can't figure out something very important, esp. since nothing's been standardized on DSLR operation between makes and models yet. (lol. just finding the RECORD button can be tricky! Not like camcorders where it's always under your thumb.)

11. Hand holding
+ Video camcorder. Designed for this. You can get away with holding it up for extended periods of time.
- DSLR. Was only designed to be held up to focus and shoot, or tripod use. Body grip and design wasn't targeted for extended periods of holding, which is why almost everyone buys frames etc. for them.

12. Shotgun mic, wireless.
Toss up, but latest camcorders have options like Sony's Bluetooth wireless mic kit, shotgun mics, etc. from the OEM. DSLRs don't have them by default from the OEM, so you'll have to buy from 3rd party vendors and test to make sure everything works.

That said, default mic is way way better on video camcorders vs. DSLRs for stereo, 5.1, high pressure/volume and zoom recordings.

13. Depth of Field
DSLR wins with a prime lens. Good luck however focusing while the bride is in motion at f/1.8!

And for the most part, she wants to see EVERYONE because she couldn't as the bride. No point blurring out aunt-this, uncle-that, etc. for her. The photographer's job is to have blurred backgrounds with shallow DOF. Brides will be looking over their flower selection (while you're working on the person standing far in front of them), their dresses, their shoes, table settings ... pretty much everything you'd never think of, they'll want to see. It's pretty much a given they'll be asking questions and be asked questions about this or that forever, and they'll want to know it's visible and clear in their video.

Yes. There's the high end, movie like, high budget wedding, but unless you've got $$$$ in equipment, men, lighting, mics, etc., it won't feel like a MOVIE until you've got everything in there like one. (Yes, you'll be thinking, I should ADR all of the lines... lol....)

So for my target market, they don't care about DOF and would rather have infinite DOF.

14. Zoom smoothness.
Nothing like a good camcorder rocker. You can practice zooming slowly on a DSLR lens, but it had better be one with a nice zoom ring and pray it doesn't shake while you're at it. Camcorders even have wireless and wired remote controllers do operate this.

15. Backup video light.
Most good camcorders have one built-in. No need to worry about yet-another-thing-to-carry.

16. Rotating LCD display.
Most camcorders have them, most DSLRs don't. Can be tough shooting what you can't easily see on screen for framing, etc.

17. Standard 1080 60i default.
Camcorder wins here for out-of-box simplicity. DSLRs, pray they're set to this from the start.

Yes, there's 24, 30p, 60p, etc. at 720, 1080, 2k+, etc., but really now? What will most brides have? A DVD or Bluray player hooked up to a 1080 60i HDTV. It's not a 24p, 30p, etc. monitor, so why cause her grief with pullups/downs/resolution converstions, etc.?

1080 60i is pretty much the 'best' you can do for now, and the 'default' that'll look the best on most HDTV sets for what the bride has. Will drive you nuts to explain why she's stuttering or blurred at 24p/etc.

One can say 60p is better for motion, but as we've all seen for football, soccer, baseball, basketball, etc. games on broadcast 1080 60i, it's good enough for the majority. Plus, she's not likely to have a 60p HDTV.

18. Easy One button/one option, on-scene, burn to AVCHD compatible disc.
+Camcorder. If the couple has a recent Bluray player, it's a piece of cake to toss them the raw footage right there if that's what they want, or even for yourself for safety, with an external recorder that some camcorders have as an option. And it really is just one selection to burn it all (eg. Plug Sony into Sony burner, select burn recordings, and it will burn each and every one to disc).
- DSLR. Sorry. Gotta have the external media tank or laptop with you. And pray YOU don't forget which files to burn because it won't automate all this for you.

19. 100% compatibility with modern editing software.
+Camcorder. Sorry, MPEG-2 and AVCHD wins.
+DSLR. Raw, red, etc. etc. etc.

Wow, thanks everyone! There was definitely a lot of things I didn't consider in this area of videography...

it seems as though no one is buying the traditional video cameras anymore


I do :) I use a traditional videocamera and a dslr with weddings, when you use a dslr under the right conditions you can have very nice looking footage, mainly because of the shallow dof and the fact that you don't have to use extra light when using a fast lens. But especially the canons can give you awefull footage and ruin your shots completely caused by ugly moire or aliasing.

For me their just a tool, mainly for creative shallow dof shots, to fly on my blackbird steadicam (because their so light) and to shoot with when it gets too dark. Their just a big pain in the *** to operate, focus can be extremely tricky and to me they still are a photocamera with a videofunction and very limited functionality.

With my "real" videocamera you can just trow me into any unpredictable situation and I will get the shot, without even worrying, with a dslr I only would be sure if I was a 2 or 3 man crew.

Dslr's are great to have but they don't make great video, it's the guy behind the camera that does.

True words from a wise man...it's the guy behind the camera that counts in ALL cases!!

I think saying that people don't buy video cameras any more is a little over the top. If that was hapenning or going to happen then manuafacturers like Sony, Pansonic, JVC and Canon would have stopped production a lot time ago...despite their success, Canon STILL make the new 5D III as a STILL camera that can take video too!!

Chris

That was a helluva list from David C., and I must say I agree almost categorically. I do use my 7D (yes, in a rig to make it more like a camcorder) for the 'glamour' shots, slider shots of the bride, etc. Usually use a Canon 28mm prime for that. Otherwise, I am using my Panny AC 130's and DOF is really not a concern. Well, yes it is - I want the infinite DOF of the 'true' camcorder. I will also quite often lock down my AC 130's and run-n-gun with the 7D. They mix well in post, and I have the creative option of adding in the fancy-schmancy DSLR shallow DOF shots where appropriate.

The debate will go on, endlessly I'm sure, about camcorder vs. DSLR. There are arguments for both - and I love using both. Standing in the back of the church with my 7D and a 70-200mm lens is very unobtrusive, and I get some great footage. (Of course, the 22x zoom on the AC-130 gives that flexibility too.) But, an AC-130 locked down in the balcony, zoomed in on the B&G, another one locked down from behind the altar and me roaming with the 7D has become by favorite mode for shooting the ceremony. (Lav mic on the groom and an H4n somewhere up front.)

I usually use the 7D at the reception and snag audio from the DJ via the H4n plugged into his board.


Take all that into post with FCP and "make the magic happen!" :)

Here's excerpts from a relavent post by Thomas Wong in an earlier thread ...

"Here are some reasons that made me move back to a camcorder from a DSLR (beside the quality and features)

I lost a line of jobs from an advertising company after the first job. Why? because I was using a (Canon) 5D, they expect their TV commercials need a video camera to shoot. They have a 5D, and even more selection of lens too.

And then they noticed the 5D has the capability to shoot great video, and I have never been called back for their video productions. And I ask them after some months and they said, 'oh yes, we can shoot the video ourselves now'

DSLR is just all too common. When I did wedding videos, there were 5-10 people using a 5D, and they are the guests! It also happened to me many times when shooting video with my 5D at weddings and events, people kept asking me to take a photo for them.

Even tho I carefully explain I am just the videographer, they will insist I take a picture for them. If I did they'll want a copy, so I don't and they get might get drunk and pull faces in my video at the reception.

If your clients are more corporate side, it is better use a professional camcorder, because it's not something too common that everyone could get one. If your jobs are mainly non-commercial such as wedding, DSLR is enough, even though you will be asked to take pictures."

Cheers.

My self definitely not going to get a new DSLR or additional one.
I have the 7D from the moment it was introduced.
I started shooting with it only pre ceremony and when I felt more comfortable i shot some of the reception dancing.
I got to the point that the entire wedding was captured by a 7D.T2I and a Nikon.
But I did missed the great audio quality and audio controls that even with a zoom on a camera and a rode microphone I still liked much better the audio from a video camera.
Not that i use much of the audio from the camera, but sometimes during the pre ceremony the bride will say something that will be nice to add to the movie and sound that came from the DSLR is really not that nice.
More then that, not having focus assist and picking which makes me strop recording and zoom in and refocus.
short time battery that DSLR has and short time recording.
At this point I am shopping for a DSLR replacement and it looks like it is going to be the fs100.

I knew I forgot Something in my long list =D

Zebra bars and focus peaking.

Can't say how many times lighting was so-so and the Zebra bars saved the brides face from horrible under/over exposure. I pretty much have it on throughout a wedding to make sure things don't clip. Outdoors, usually 100% zebras because I don't want the dress to blow out into a pure white. Otherwise, 70% or whatever the camcorder handles at this level so her face doesn't look like blah.

Naturally, you'll want manual exposure compensation or something to adjust quickly - my camcorder has EV comp to get it there fast.

Focus peaking is useful in the limited situations where I'm trying to get some coverage shots in between the main events, usually just before reception, of the table settings, flowers, etc. without everyone present. (Makes for nice photo inserts in the DVD - yeah, crazy how some brides will go over their selection of food and tableware forever and ever, not to mention their flowers...) Usually works well because indoors, the f/stop is wide open due to lower lighting levels.

--

You can get a decent background blur simply zooming in and taping scenes from a little distance away if you've got manual f/stop control and enough ND filters/exposure latitude to work with.

--

And typically, no jello video either from a camcorder =D Can't say that about DSLRs.

-------------

My target market doesn't have the money to go for mutiple videographers, so forget the DSLR + camcorder here.

I won't leave the camcorder unattended period to get shots with the DSLR - the camcoder's more reliable and the keeper no matter what, and if that dies, the DSLR isn't going to cover what I need. I'd have to hire someone to man the DSLR. And if I had the money for another DSLR, I'd actually get another Canon M4x/5x series and use it for 2nd camera coverage by itself on a tripod from another angle (or a handful of T-series Cybershots for multicam coverage - see below).

Audio? Olympus DS-30 digital recorder up close if I'm way, way in back. Cheap and CD quality audio is good enough for the speeches/ceremony. Small enough to stick almost anywhere near the bride - podium, floor, pocket.

Photos? I always include a photo slideshow of the day in my DVDs. How?
Simple. Sony Cybershots - T-series (those sliding cover models) Simple flash bracket under the camcoder to hold the Cybershot with the camcorder. Both together are light enough for me to hold with one hand if need be, and I can snap photos throughout in addition to on-board camcorder photos. The quality of the external camera is higher, and I can zoom in on camera shots independently.

I use a DSC-T9 - don't need more because HDTV is only 2MP. So I'm always getting crisp photos downsizing for DVD or even DVD cover use. Plus of these older models is their fixed focus mode - I set it to 3m or infinity depending on the scene and the camera takes photos with no delay even with no light (flash fires of course)! Yep. Dancing at the reception and nothing can focus fast enough for a camera? No problem - fixed focus solves it all. Just aim and shoot! Sharp dancing photos with all the room lights off no matter what with no delay. Can't say that about DSLRs (yes, you can set F/stop for hyperfocal, but if you're moving about, bouncing around, etc. that focus ring can move - my T9 won't ever move out of the preset focus range).

Nobody notices because everyone expects cameras to be firing at weddings =D And photographer doesn't even notice because it's too small next to my camcorder.

Newer T-series don't have fixed focus, so you'll have to deal with either a red focus light in low light situations, or turning the red AF aid off and losing a shot here and there. But they do have 1080i video recording mode, which means voila! cheap (get one refurb'd at tech4less.net or sonystyle.com clearance) HD video backup should your primary camcorder fail.

And we're not talking about cheap video either - it's seriously HQ enough to substitute. Naturally, battery life is short, so either more battery packs, keep it to photo taking only, or take fewer videos/photos. Usually, one pack on the T9 is enough for all the photos after a 6 hour day. (Think, if it can take 240 photos on one charge, that's 40 photos an hour, and there really aren't more than 1 photo per 1 minute in a 6 hour day worth taking.)

Usually, I toss out 1/2 to 2/3rds of the photos for the usual reasons - bad compostion, blinking, not interesting, etc.

I do take photos on my camcorder, too, but I try not to interfere with its primary job of taping since pushing buttons can interfere and the flash isn't as good as on the camera.

---

Tape vs SD card vs Bluray
I'm sure everyone's thought about this one.
I'd pick HDV if your camcorder supports that as the raw delivery format - nothing else but tape has been proven to sit in cold storage for decade+ w/o falling apart.
(Downsides of tape are 1 hour record limit before a break in the video & glitches due to dirty video heads in HDV camcorders. Not present in MPEG-2.)

SD cards have electron migration issues, so forget about it after 10 years!

Bluray - Panasonic is tooting in japan their 25/50 year archival pro discs, so worth looking into. But any 'bonded' plastic disc format is subject to falling apart from over flexing, light exposure, etc. Still, better than flash.

HDs - don't bother. HD makers won't even warranty past 5 years.

DVD - Made in Japan discs only for single layer; Singapore for DVD+R/DL since Verbatim only makes them there. But don't expect these to last forever - the organic dye they use doesn't last as long, even in cold storage, vs. the inorganic layer used in Bluray discs.

---

HDV camcorders do have the easier to encode/decode MPEG-2 format. Heck, even Canon is supporting only MPEG-2 with their latest C300 monsters, and MPEG-4 H.264/AVCHD is just a pain when it comes to hogging the CPU during editing.

Even on camcorderinfo.com, it took a few versions of Canon's consumer level AVCHD camcorders to finally catch up to their first HDV camcorder, the HV10! Just shows how 'solid' the HDV format is.

Nowadays, it'll have to be AVCHD at the 17+Mbps rate. And H.264 does have the advantage, at higher bitrates, to be smoother and less blocky than MPEG-2 when pixel peeping.

---

Finally, Sony Vegas Video for editing, IMO. Reliable, drag & drop any format into the timeline for editing w/o transcoding, easy to learn in minutes (far faster than other NLE's - yes, tried them all), reliable, fast for cuts/trims/slips/etc, etc.
For the low end weddings that I'm doing, it's pretty much the Swiss Army Knife that'll do all the basics short of After Effects I need for the final video output. Even years and years after my first wedding shoot, I still haven't found anything more intuitive, quick and useful.

===============

Oh, and dumbest thing I've ever witnessed at a wedding?

The Photographer's assistant brings out a bright spotlight, like one of those 10 million candle things, and during the 1st dance where the light is turned way down, points it at the bride's face While the photographer is taking Flash photos?!?!?!??!? =o

Yeah. Great. Washed out faces. Oh, well. They can blame their photographer for that one. Must have been a newbie assistant....

I personally love challenges.

Many people seem to criticize dSLR's for how hard it is to accomplish something good with them. But I make it my goal. There are many people and companies who have done great things with dSLR's and I always tell myself that if others can do it, I can't give myself any excuses for failing and will definitely never blame it on the tool, but on myself for not being skillful enough to use the tool properly.

I personally love challenges.

Many people seem to criticize dSLR's for how hard it is to accomplish something good with them. But I make it my goal. There are many people and companies who have done great things with dSLR's and I always tell myself that if others can do it, I can't give myself any excuses for failing and will definitely never blame it on the tool, but on myself for not being skillful enough to use the tool properly.

Guess it just goes back to the old saying of how it's not the camera that makes the video, but the operator =)

I knew I forgot Something in my long list =D

Zebra bars and focus peaking.

Can't say how many times lighting was so-so and the Zebra bars saved the brides face from horrible under/over exposure. I pretty much have it on throughout a wedding to make sure things don't clip. Outdoors, usually 100% zebras because I don't want the dress to blow out into a pure white. Otherwise, 70% or whatever the camcorder handles at this level so her face doesn't look like blah.

Naturally, you'll want manual exposure compensation or something to adjust quickly - my camcorder has EV comp to get it there fast.

Focus peaking is useful in the limited situations where I'm trying to get some coverage shots in between the main events, usually just before reception, of the table settings, flowers, etc. without everyone present. (Makes for nice photo inserts in the DVD - yeah, crazy how some brides will go over their selection of food and tableware forever and ever, not to mention their flowers...) Usually works well because indoors, the f/stop is wide open due to lower lighting levels.

--

You can get a decent background blur simply zooming in and taping scenes from a little distance away if you've got manual f/stop control and enough ND filters/exposure latitude to work with.

--

And typically, no jello video either from a camcorder =D Can't say that about DSLRs.

-------------

My target market doesn't have the money to go for mutiple videographers, so forget the DSLR + camcorder here.

I won't leave the camcorder unattended period to get shots with the DSLR - the camcoder's more reliable and the keeper no matter what, and if that dies, the DSLR isn't going to cover what I need. I'd have to hire someone to man the DSLR. And if I had the money for another DSLR, I'd actually get another Canon M4x/5x series and use it for 2nd camera coverage by itself on a tripod from another angle (or a handful of T-series Cybershots for multicam coverage - see below).

Audio? Olympus DS-30 digital recorder up close if I'm way, way in back. Cheap and CD quality audio is good enough for the speeches/ceremony. Small enough to stick almost anywhere near the bride - podium, floor, pocket.

Photos? I always include a photo slideshow of the day in my DVDs. How?
Simple. Sony Cybershots - T-series (those sliding cover models) Simple flash bracket under the camcoder to hold the Cybershot with the camcorder. Both together are light enough for me to hold with one hand if need be, and I can snap photos throughout in addition to on-board camcorder photos. The quality of the external camera is higher, and I can zoom in on camera shots independently.

I use a DSC-T9 - don't need more because HDTV is only 2MP. So I'm always getting crisp photos downsizing for DVD or even DVD cover use. Plus of these older models is their fixed focus mode - I set it to 3m or infinity depending on the scene and the camera takes photos with no delay even with no light (flash fires of course)! Yep. Dancing at the reception and nothing can focus fast enough for a camera? No problem - fixed focus solves it all. Just aim and shoot! Sharp dancing photos with all the room lights off no matter what with no delay. Can't say that about DSLRs (yes, you can set F/stop for hyperfocal, but if you're moving about, bouncing around, etc. that focus ring can move - my T9 won't ever move out of the preset focus range).

Nobody notices because everyone expects cameras to be firing at weddings =D And photographer doesn't even notice because it's too small next to my camcorder.

Newer T-series don't have fixed focus, so you'll have to deal with either a red focus light in low light situations, or turning the red AF aid off and losing a shot here and there. But they do have 1080i video recording mode, which means voila! cheap (get one refurb'd at tech4less.net or sonystyle.com clearance) HD video backup should your primary camcorder fail.

And we're not talking about cheap video either - it's seriously HQ enough to substitute. Naturally, battery life is short, so either more battery packs, keep it to photo taking only, or take fewer videos/photos. Usually, one pack on the T9 is enough for all the photos after a 6 hour day. (Think, if it can take 240 photos on one charge, that's 40 photos an hour, and there really aren't more than 1 photo per 1 minute in a 6 hour day worth taking.)

Usually, I toss out 1/2 to 2/3rds of the photos for the usual reasons - bad compostion, blinking, not interesting, etc.

I do take photos on my camcorder, too, but I try not to interfere with its primary job of taping since pushing buttons can interfere and the flash isn't as good as on the camera.

---

Tape vs SD card vs Bluray
I'm sure everyone's thought about this one.
I'd pick HDV if your camcorder supports that as the raw delivery format - nothing else but tape has been proven to sit in cold storage for decade+ w/o falling apart.
(Downsides of tape are 1 hour record limit before a break in the video & glitches due to dirty video heads in HDV camcorders. Not present in MPEG-2.)

SD cards have electron migration issues, so forget about it after 10 years!

Bluray - Panasonic is tooting in japan their 25/50 year archival pro discs, so worth looking into. But any 'bonded' plastic disc format is subject to falling apart from over flexing, light exposure, etc. Still, better than flash.

HDs - don't bother. HD makers won't even warranty past 5 years.

DVD - Made in Japan discs only for single layer; Singapore for DVD+R/DL since Verbatim only makes them there. But don't expect these to last forever - the organic dye they use doesn't last as long, even in cold storage, vs. the inorganic layer used in Bluray discs.

---

HDV camcorders do have the easier to encode/decode MPEG-2 format. Heck, even Canon is supporting only MPEG-2 with their latest C300 monsters, and MPEG-4 H.264/AVCHD is just a pain when it comes to hogging the CPU during editing.

Even on camcorderinfo.com, it took a few versions of Canon's consumer level AVCHD camcorders to finally catch up to their first HDV camcorder, the HV10! Just shows how 'solid' the HDV format is.

Nowadays, it'll have to be AVCHD at the 17+Mbps rate. And H.264 does have the advantage, at higher bitrates, to be smoother and less blocky than MPEG-2 when pixel peeping.

---

Finally, Sony Vegas Video for editing, IMO. Reliable, drag & drop any format into the timeline for editing w/o transcoding, easy to learn in minutes (far faster than other NLE's - yes, tried them all), reliable, fast for cuts/trims/slips/etc, etc.
For the low end weddings that I'm doing, it's pretty much the Swiss Army Knife that'll do all the basics short of After Effects I need for the final video output. Even years and years after my first wedding shoot, I still haven't found anything more intuitive, quick and useful.

===============

Oh, and dumbest thing I've ever witnessed at a wedding?

The Photographer's assistant brings out a bright spotlight, like one of those 10 million candle things, and during the 1st dance where the light is turned way down, points it at the bride's face While the photographer is taking Flash photos?!?!?!??!? =o

Yeah. Great. Washed out faces. Oh, well. They can blame their photographer for that one. Must have been a newbie assistant....

Wow that's a very thorough list of things you've got there!

Ok. Sure, one can argue it is the operator and not the tool, but would anyone bother with 16mm film for a wedding nowadays?
There are always better tools out there, and no point using the harder to use tool for no good reason.

One point that I haven't seen properly addressed with dslrs is what do you do when you fail to capture important parts of a wedding when your dslr 1) Reaches its short record limit (even 5D mk iii has 30min max per clip) 2)Stops working mysteriously due to sensor overheating (even sony's A77 brochure lists max times by ambient temperature, 7D's issues, etc)
all simply because you failed to use a camcorder, which can record hours non-stop.

I'd love comments on how people recreate missing footage. Or do you all say Stop in the middle of a ceremony while you restart recording on a dslr?

David, many top wedding pros, and many award winning ones, use DSLRs for weddings, as we all know. So the issue as to how to capture a wedding without missing a shot is all about knowing your equipment, not whether it can be done. It is being done every week across the world.

There are blogs aplenty with tutorials on how to do this very thing.

I personally shot a fair number of weddings last year using nothing but GH2s, which are limited only by card size and battery life. Technically they are not DSLRs, by virtue of their inner workings, but they are for all intents and purposes the same as DSLRs.

DSLR shooters often utilize video cameras to catch uninterrupted footage to use in conjunction with their DSLR, so that is not an issue for any sensible shooter.

Most people who knock DSRS most vehemently have never tried it. It is not for the faint of heart. It is challenging and is maddening at times for me, but I have grown so much from the experience I would never go back to not having tried it.

I can't give myself any excuses for failing and will definitely never blame it on the tool, but on myself for not being skillful enough to use the tool properly.

I think a DSLR has several reasons why it will let you fail in a run and gun situation, that has nothing to do with skill but only with the functional limitation the tool has. A professional ENG videocamera has all it's important functions laid out on the outside for a reason, a DSLR is ok for controlled situations if you are alone or in uncontrolled situations if you are a 2-3 man crew.

That's quite a list from David and I can see where his recommendations lie. Interestingly - even with 19 bullet points he doesn't talk about moiré and aliasing even once. Strange, because that's the bug-bear with my 60D. It's fine if you can defocus the church bricks and the tiled roof, but if you zoom to wide and forget that dof has brought them sharp, then you've ruined the shot.

But the main thing is that a wedding day is a rapidly unfolding, unpredictable collection of lighting conditions, audio headaches and focal length requirements. In my view it's fine to shoot with DSLRs if you have backup - then by all means selectively play with your dof and big-chip low-light ISOs. But if you're a lone worker delighting in the photographic nuances that selective focus can give you I'd say you're going to very quickly miss things.

Even with my NX5 (30mm to 600mm equiv) I still find I need a wide-converter, and the precious seconds it takes to attach this are seconds of her day that I haven't recorded. I know the camera will run for hour after hour (some speeches seem like that), but with that huge zoom I can isolate the speaker and in the next second grab tens of laughing guests.

The DSLR works well in the bride's preps, where you have time to play, experiment, change lenses and fiddle with audio recorders. But it comes down to this - if my daughter was getting married and wanted a video of her day shot by a loner, who would I choose to pay - the DSLR or the three-chip shooter? I've shot with both, so I know my answer. Yours may well be different.

tom.

I think Jeff Harper hit the nail on its head.

David, many top wedding pros, and many award winning ones, use DSLRs for weddings, as we all know. So the issue as to how to capture a wedding without missing a shot is all about knowing your equipment, not whether it can be done. It is being done every week across the world.

Every tool has its advantages and limitations.
Every tool requires different techniques and workflow.
It is our own responsibility to know our gear and what to do with it.

Ok. Sure, one can argue it is the operator and not the tool, but would anyone bother with 16mm film for a wedding nowadays?
There are always better tools out there, and no point using the harder to use tool for no good reason.

Why so much hate for dslrs? Losing business to Dslr shooter.. Personally I shoot with 2 t3is and 2 sigma lens that I got all for $2,000.. What semi pro camera will give me the great image quality and the low light performance for $2000? ok $2500 including audio gear..

I don't understand the haters either Jay. Makes no sense. I see videos shot with DSLRs, and the prices my friends get with them, and it is truly impressive. It is a huge phenomenon, and it's not going away anytime soon.

The moire thing that people experience with the Canons and Nikons, (which is not present in my cameras) doesn't even bother me, it's such a non-issue for 90% of all shots that I don't even care. I would use a t31 or 60d in a heartbeat, and I'd love it. Great cams.

Hey Jeff

A claw hammer and a ball peen hammer both do an equally good job wacking nails into lumber..it's just preference!! I think it's important that you use the tools that you are comfortable with without snide comments from the persons that might be different to you. Jay, you should have been posting 6 months ago!! there was a lot of heated comments between DSLR users and Video users but that has now died down which is far more sensible. Both do a good job ... why even bother to stand up for one side unless someone is asking a question about using a system.

Chris

Yeah I was here 6months ago lurking and remember those threads.. I think now many of the pro camera posters have finally respected the dslrs probably because they bought one and saw the great image quality they were able to get with it! :)

I think now many of the pro camera posters have finally respected the dslrs probably because they bought one and saw the great image quality they were able to get with it! :)

Your point is understood with one minor clearification ...the DSLR, in the right hands, is a pro video camera.


Hey Jeff

A claw hammer and a ball peen hammer both do an equally good job wacking nails into lumber..it's just preference!! I think it's important that you use the tools that you are comfortable with without snide comments from the persons that might be different to you. Jay, you should have been posting 6 months ago!! there was a lot of heated comments between DSLR users and Video users but that has now died down which is far more sensible. Both do a good job ... why even bother to stand up for one side unless someone is asking a question about using a system.

Chris

I disagree. Take a side. Encourage thought. Spark some new incite that perhaps someone on one side or another hasn't considered. How 'bout that? Instead of trying to quell conversation and stifle debate about the tools we use to create art - encourage debate.

You are right Chris, to a degree. To use an analogy like yours, a slotted screwdriver will not work where a phillips head is required. To accomplish specific tasks we get the best results with a specific tool. A tack hammer will not be effective in nailing a large carpenter's nail, for example. A sledgehammer would not be practical for nailing carpet tacks.

I'm thinking specifically of low light situations where the use of extra lighting is not desirable, or in some cases, forbidden by the customer. My videocamera will produce images in a darkened room, but what will they look like? Dark and muddy, and low in contrast, probably.

In the above situation, I break out my trusty GH2 fitted with a F/1.4 lens and I've got crystal clear images that will destroy my video camera. In this case the video camera will work, but only technically. Truth be told, in some situations, if clear and lovely images are the goal, the videocamera simply cannot deliver, unless the quality of my images are secondary.

We've all gotten by with videocameras for years, but customer's expectations here in Cincinnati are not the same as they once were. Customers want clear and beautiful images because that is what they see everywhere now. They don't know a DSLR from a video camera oftentimes, but they can certainly see the difference in quality.

I do get what people say when they say that it's all in the operator, but that is shortsighted and not really true at all. As has been pointed out, why not just buy an old VHS camera and shoot with that instead? Or pick up a used $100 consumer camcorder?

It is a good discussion to have, but I just think the times we live in demand more from us as videographers than to believe that when it comes to equipment, one size fits all.

For the vast majority of cases, a videocamera will suffice. But other times not so much. We can get by without DSLRs if necessary much of the time, or vice versa, but for shooting in a large variety of settings and lighting conditions, I'm glad to have both at my disposal.

Hi Craig

It was the other way around as well...DSLR users used to fight with normal camera users with the arguement that ONLY a DSLR should be used for weddings and a video camera was a waste of time.

Sorry you disagree but each to their own..it's much the same between car owners who swear by the model they drive and wouldn't be seen dead in other model!! Even here there is rivally between Ford and GM (I drive neither so I'm neutral)

The important thing is the end result, no matter what you use to achieve it and of course that could be a combination of both as Jeff uses!

Chris

if clear and lovely images are the goal, the videocamera simply cannot deliver, unless the quality of my images are secondary.

What's your definition of a "videocamera"? If I would break out a sony fs100 with a 1.4 lens it would probably destroy your gh2 and the fs100 is a videocamera, right? :) A dslr is just a tool, which can shine in certain situations or can miserably fail if used in the wrong time and place. You should use a "tool" based on your own preferences, for me that happens to be a videocamera with a small sensor and a dslr and I use them both in the right place and time, taking into consideration that I work alone. If someone decides that dslr is the only way to go, why not if that fit's their workflow? For me a DSLR is also a valuable tool when it gets real dark since I rarely have to use videolights which bother guests but in any other "normal" situation I prefer a real videocamera which gives me much more controll, especially in run and gun where my dslr would let me fail for sure.

The moire thing that people experience with the Canons and Nikons, (which is not present in my cameras) doesn't even bother me, it's such a non-issue for 90% of all shots that I don't even care. I would use a t31 or 60d in a heartbeat, and I'd love it. Great cams.

Have you used a canon dslr? Have you seen how horrible and distracting moire can look on a wide angle lens? If you want to deliver clear and beautiful images then you don't use a t3i with a slower wideangle lens when you have got small bricks, roof-tiles of even someone with a small striped t-shirt because your clients will comment on it. At least in my case they did once.

In my country people don't care about what tool you use to make a wedding video and nobody pays extra if you say you got dslr's, I even stopped mentioning it, I just show my demo's and that's it.

It was the other way around as well...DSLR users used to fight with normal camera users with the arguement that ONLY a DSLR should be used for weddings and a video camera was a waste of time.

I my country that would be impossible if you work alone in certain scenarios, f.i. when I have to film the church I often have almost no set-up time, by the time I arrive at the church, find a parking place and take my gear inside everyone is almost ready to enter the church meaning I sometimes have 1 minute to setup. During that time I also have to mic the groom, place a zoom h1 on the alter and a zoom h4 if they hired some people to sing live. With a shotgun mike on my camera I capture any speeches from the family because I can get very close. A second small camera is set up right next to me aimed at the priest so a I have a safety. My camera's are put in record mode while I enter the church and I leave them running during that ceremony, all adjustments to white balance, exposure, audio or focus are done while the camera's are running.
I honestly could not imagine doing that with my dslr's.

What's your definition of a "videocamera"? If I would break out a sony fs100 with a 1.4 lens it would probably destroy your gh2.

Noa, one would hope that a $5K (no lens included) cam with a 35mm sensor like the FS100 could destroy the $899 GH2, but it would not.

The differences between the two are not enough to say the FS100 would destroy the GH2. The GH2 can acquire gorgeous images in the same low light settings as the FS100, whereas a traditional camcorder cannot. Using a prime lens with either camera you can certainly obtain beautiful images in low light.

Using a $100 Canon FD F/1.4 50mm lens for $100 with the GH2, at $1000 I would accept the differences between the two to achieve filming at F/1.4.

I do not think of the FS100 a traditional videocamera, but if we say, for your argument, that it is, then your point is well taken.

Using a prime lens on the FS100 you will be essentially shooting with all of the limitations of a DSLR anyway, so the comparison is not really the best one.

A traditional videocamera will provide the zoom that most expect from a 'normal" video camera. This is why I use both a traditional form factor videocamera and GH2, I need both.

The FS100 would be a nice compromise between the two, but outfitted with fast lenses and fast zooms you're talking quadruple or greater price than a GH2. So yes you may be right in spirit.

I can also buy a $50K videcamera that will blow away the GH2 or FS100, but it's not a fair comparison.

I started writing a rebuttal of David's anti-DSLR manifesto to correct some of the more ludicrous statements e.g. "she's not likely to have a 60p HDTV." (HDTVs are rarely anything but 60Hz progressive) but in the end realised it was pointless as for whatever reason he just hates DSLRs for video & can see no virtue in them. It is noticeable though that most of the points he bangs on about are to do with making life easy for the videographer & not to do with making beautiful videos for the client. There are challenges to using DSLRs for video but you can make beautiful videos with them. It's a whole different technique to using a camcorder with a motor zoom & auto-everything & that's why the results are different. While a photographer is hired for almost every wedding only a minority of brides have ever wanted a traditional documentary style wedding video so it's time to try something different with an aesthetic that's nearer to photography than video.

I would think that the best tool is being used by the leaders in our community. If you look at them, they are using DSLR's (some migrating towards C300). The market rewards those that move forward. If you look at the knot in major metropolitan areas, dslr companies are showing up everywhere. I read posts from traditional videographers that times are tough, but ignore the competition, that are doing well.

I bet that the infocus awards next year will not have a single traditional videocamera winner.

Interesting observation Greg and I'm right with you. I've just had the honour of being part of the final judging team at this year's IAC international film competition, and the DSLR productions took all the top slots and all the major prizes. DSLRs tend to force the cinematographers to take more care, to set up the scenes, to plan more carefully, to take their time. They know what they want pictorially and it shows in the beautiful imagery up there on the big screen.

But the reason that Jeff and I and Noa and David all use and love the traditional videocamera has nothing to do with the above, and has everything to do with the very nature of wedding and event videography, where unexpected things happen at unexpected times right throughout the day.

Brides and grooms don't hit their marks, and nor will they wait for the audio to be set up, cameras to cool down, cards to be changed. It's for this reason alone that the camcorder has its place - it's almost unfailing ability to be 5 different DSLRs in one. Lens adapters and DSLR contraptions (for that's what they end up looking like when assembled for run 'n' gun) do have their place, but my contention is that getting that one beautiful pictorial shots means you miss 5 others happening all around you.

But what great times we live in. The tiny SD900 can work alongside the EX3, the 5D2 alongside the Z1. The best tool for the job is out there, giving quality results unimagined 5 years ago.

tom.

Lens adapters and DSLR contraptions (for that's what they end up looking like when assembled for run 'n' gun) do have their place, but my contention is that getting that one beautiful pictorial shots means you miss 5 others happening all around you.I don't know who you have seen shooting weddings with a DSLR but it's the wannabee filmakers who pimp out their DSLRs with rails, follow-focus, matter box & all that other junk. You don't need any lens adaptors if you use the lenses designed for the camera (we use Canon 'L' lenses on 5D2s & 5D3s). Shooting events properly with a DSLR is done with minimal extra gear with at most a loupe & monopod/tripod. Even aside from the beautiful images they produce the key advantage of using a DSLR for video is simplicity & flexibility. It's a new style of shooting that makes you think more about framing & what you are filming rather than just letting the camcorder run on auto-everything.

Er - I don't know any camcorder wedding film-makers who run on 'auto everything' Nigel, do you? They won't be here, that's for sure. And I assure you that when a DSLR (rather than my NX5) is held between my palms it doesn't 'make me think more about framing & what I am filming'. A viewfinder is a viewfinder, both are inanimate idiots until a brain points them in the right direction.

tom.

I suspect all that is happening here is that few people have both kinds of kit available to them in similar qualities, so their viewpoints are honest, but based on partial evidence.

I'll explain what I mean. If you have a very good quality traditional, large shoulder mounted video camera, and perhaps a DSLR possibly without a video facility, you simply cannot imagine how anyone would possibly be able to use one properly. You will have seen the narrow depth of field, and sighed in relief that your camera normally used doesn't exhibit that because you remember the hundreds of times you've struggled with jobs to maintain decent depth of field. This would be me, I think - remembering all the times I've done theatre stuff in very low light with the lens wide open and struggled to keep everything sharp - really hard work. Some of us tried Sonys when the EX-1 came along and found it very awkward to use because it was in front. Many of us have also had long lenses on our still cameras and found them unwieldy and difficult to keep steady. These reasons overshadow completely any positives with picture quality. Only yesterday did I realise one popular DSLR had the bottom end filtered off the audio - which to me, seems crazy. So I am biased. I look at the DSLR users and even without the crazy gizmos they attach to a small box, I just view the system as flawed - but note, flawed for me.

The users of DSLRs who love them, also get familiar with the downsides (which of course my own big cameras have plenty of) and concentrate on the positives - for them, shallow DoF and the big chips mean they love the images and excuse everything else. The end users of the products love or hate the products we produce because of content, not really quality, so to a degree, their input is flawed.

I cannot even consider buying a DSLR for video because for what I do they really would be a step down, not up. I need certain features that they don't have - so that is why they are out for me. In the last 5 years, I think I've needed shallow DoF once or twice, and using the lens open, plus a bit of cheating in post did it. Every single other production I have done wanted sharp focus, everywhere, all the time.

So there are two camps, with strong people in each one. A few flit from one to the other. Maybe we could adapt, but we don't want to try. I have physically big cameras on my plus list - with some small versions for PoV and B cam. I don't have a DSLR. Some DSLR owners have one of those, plus a small auto type camcorder, so their dislike of non-DSLR is perhaps because they are comparing DSLR with handicap types. I'm comparing my cameras with the video version of my stills only DSLR which means I'm not comparing like with like. We all read the reviews of the 'other' type and pick out the negatives and ignore the positives - that's just how we do it. I will not be buying a DSLR, but that doesn't mean people who do are wrong. I find the faults/features not what I want.

I suspect strongly we're discussing the merits/disadvantages of beta v vhs, or even Ford v Vauxhall - where the real answer is never anything other than opinion with no real substance.


We now have so many different video production tools, maybe we just need to pick them for specific projects and accept there is no single one that does everything?

Er - I don't know any camcorder wedding film-makers who run on 'auto everything' Nigel, do you? They won't be here, that's for sure.David Chien for one. Autofocus is top of that long list he posted of the supposed advantages for a camcorder closely followed by autoexposure. Plenty of camcorder users take advantage of the auto functions even if they claim to run everything on manual.
And I assure you that when a DSLR (rather than my NX5) is held between my palms it doesn't 'make me think more about framing & what I am filming'. A viewfinder is a viewfinder, both are inanimate idiots until a brain points them in the right direction.Composing for the edit is different when shooting video with DSLRs. Almost by definition it must be a multi-camera shoot as there is more wasted footage because of issues with focusing, lack of motor zoom & all those other things that make using DSLRs challenging. You are always thinking about framing, cutaways, what shot will follow the next etc. You can't just have a camera on a tripod with a single viewpoint relieved only by some zooming back & forth to re-frame the subjects. Well you could but then it would be as boring as all those old style wedding videos shot with a camcorder. I am not saying that you cannot produce lovely wedding videos with a camcorder of course you can but they do allow lazy camera operators to just coast along producing uninspiring videos whereas with a DSLR there is nowhere to hide as you have to concentrate so much more on what you are doing to produce acceptable results.

The bottom line in the "debate" to me seems to be exactly as Greg F has pointed out.

You look at what the leaders in the field are doing. In the wedding biz, the leaders are using DSLRs.

I agree also very much that DSLR shooting causes you to shoot completely differently, just as described. I've experienced it.

I still shoot, even with DSLR style cams, pretty conventionally, but I'm very slow to pick up new things, it's an age thing, sadly.

You are always thinking about framing, cutaways, what shot will follow the next etc. You can't just have a camera on a tripod with a single viewpoint relieved only by some zooming back & forth to re-frame the subjects. Well you could but then it would be as boring as all those old style wedding videos shot with a camcorder.

I must be an exception then since I work with 2 dslr's and 2 videocamera's during a weddingday, both used in the right place and time as I work alone. I am thinking all the time about framing, cutaway's or what shots to take next and each time thinking about how I will be using those shots in the edit. Why would you even think a videocamera would make you lazy? Because it has automodes? My dslr has auto ISO as well if needed, does this make me a lazy dslr operator? My videocamera's are on manual everything 90% of the time and the other 10 procent it's ONLY autofocus because there are certain situations (and this I know by experience) my videocamera can focus faster and better then I can.

I use my videocamera mainly in areas where I cannot afford any mistakes and a dslr is being used in areas when I have the time to set up right, when light is low, for creative shallow dof shots or when flying a small light steadicam. The only biggest negative difference I see is that a dslr is MUCH more difficult to operate as it simply is not designed to be a videocamera.

I am not saying that you cannot produce lovely wedding videos with a camcorder of course you can but they do allow lazy camera operators to just coast along producing uninspiring videos whereas with a DSLR there is nowhere to hide as you have to concentrate so much more on what you are doing to produce acceptable results.

I think you should stop putting a label on the person behind the camera just because they don't use a dslr, I have been saying this before and keep on repeating it, it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference, the camera itself is just a tool that helps you to make that difference. There is an equal amount of weddingvideos done with a dslr on the net that look amazing as there are that look like crap and the same applies for a videocamera, one last time: it's the person behind it that makes the difference...

Noa I totally agree with what you are saying you particularly The only biggest negative difference I see is that a dslr is MUCH more difficult to operate as it simply is not designed to be a videocamera.We use camcorders too for what they are good at e.g. big motor zoom up on a crane or locked off wide. We use DSLRs for what they are good at e.g. cool arty shallow DoF or ultra low light. I was responding to a long list of why only a camcorder with auto functions was the correct tool to use for shooting weddings. There are some people who just don't understand why anyone would want to struggle with a DSLR to shoot video just as there are people who think any video camera is a toy if you don't carry it around on your shoulder.

i have both dSLRs and Camcorders and i reckon the biggest thing for me is the form factor. I've tried taking stills with one of the Camcorders, a shoulder mount with still capture facility and I just didn't feel right with it, the still camera is so much more ergonomic for stills, but not as good for video without changing the form factor!
two different tools that can do similar tasks, it's up to the operator to get the best out of them.

R.